I wrote my first story for National Geographic, on Mark Zuckerberg's proposal to accelerate internet adoption worldwide through a partnership with Nokia, Samsung, Qualcomm, and some other big companies. It's called internet.org.

Zuckerberg's plan to add five billion people to the internet is short on specifics; it talks about "connectivity as a human right" without ever actually linking it to things we've established as human rights; some of it seems like a shameless land grab for wireless spectrum, microtransactions, and freeriding, with a philanthropic front; and it's thoroughly possible that the whole effort could collapse and everybody goes back to business as usual after riding on the good publicity for a few months.

BUT: because it's framed so thoroughly in terms of business and engineering, I think it's for real. Facebook NEEDS this, and and to a lesser extent the other companies do to. And once you stop thinking about it in hippy-dippy utopian or hard-bitten "how do you get the internet to illiterates without electricity in the desert" nightmare scenarios, this is a serious plan to make the internet faster, cheaper, and more useful for hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The global internet WILL change, and it will grow faster than any of the world's institutions are ready for it, especially in the poor places of the world. This could help.

Andrei Lopatenko: I agree with Bill Gates. Medicine, improvement of sanitation, food would be way more important than internet. I so decline in the post soviet space in 90s , in rural regions of Ukraine and Moldova it was really bad (certainly it can not be compared to third world countries). People need medicine and food more than internet.

Dean Holyer: You also need to remember that America's economy is based on buying new things, and this comes from advancements in technology. But in the Post WW II era the economy was also based on new technology but also on things were made to last. For example I have a frig that my parents got in 1960 the year I was born, it is a secondary frig but things back then were made to last. And today's frigs last around 5 to 10 years before they need fixed. They do not aim to make things any more to last a Century. The advancements in technology is nice but we also need to make things last a lifetime not until the next new model comes out. And another factor in this equation is the Government. They want you to spend so they get a tax income so they can waste your money on things that make them look productive so you keep voting them into power. If you thought Algebra or Calculus was hard try solving this eqation with two non fixed variable value unknown variables that have millions of inputs into each variable unknown values. If you know the answer to the equation here then 2 + 2 = 5 is to easy an answer for you to prove true. The other problem is those that spend our money want you to think 2 + 2 = 3 but they want you to give them 5 to answer the question. Then paying the 16 Trillion we have over spent so far is not a big dent in your bank account.

Cindy Kelly: I think +Dean Holyer is saying that +Tim Carmody's discipline re: spending is unAmerican. Or maybe's he's saying we need to do a better job of choosing who we vote into office. Or both?

Even though it's boosted my own search visibility quite a bit, I think Google's Search plus Your World poses real problems for the web.

Effectively, Google has bought itself a huge amount of prime advertising space on its most popular platform for the product it most desperately needs to succeed.

It’s a little like all shows on NBC devoting every fourth commercial to plugging its show “Whitney.” (Now imagine if almost all of you watched NBC almost all the time, and Whitney Cummings were making jokes about people you know.)

Make sure you catch +Steven Levy's post on Google's personalized search, too. (I think they work well as counterpoints, but we both think something genuinely significant is happening here.)

Dale Taylor: The point that is missed is that Google wanted to do this for all social networks. That is where your analogy breaks down. It would be like NBC wanted to advertise CBS, FOX and it's own shows on it's channel but CBS and FOX refusing then complained that they advertise they're own shows.

Tim Carmody: This is true. I talk about this in the story, specifically Eric Schmidt's statement that Google would like Facebook to make its content index available for social search.

With Twitter, I don't think claim holds up, because so much of Twitter's content is already public and indexed by Google. Nevertheless, Google+ isn't just privileged over Twitter; links to Twitter accounts are much harder to find.

I also address the idea that Google is free to promote its own services. I think this is true, but at a certain point, as I say, the situation gets murky, primarily in terms of its ability to show relevant results to search users.

When every proper name and every business potentially directing to a Google+ page, you wind up with an incredible amount of searches directing you to Google+.

That said, the line about "Whitney" is at least partly a joke at the expense of NBC, who have overpromoted what I think isn't a very good show.

Google+ is filled with gorgeous, ethnically varied and ambiguous women from around the world who post nothing but meaningless inspirtational advice and follow no one but technology bloggers. What are the odds?

Show all 13 comments

Andrew Hippert: Tim, how have you been! Merry Christmas and happy new year! Hope all is well with your son and beautiful wife.

Ricarda Riechert (TiiaAurora): I am a female tech-blogger and I am here to confuse those women :D (Or are there men only following female tech-blogger? I'm not sure)

The most powerful group at Google Inc used to be known simply as "The OC," short for operating committee. Now, it goes by a more telling name: "L Team," short for Larry's Team. Page has moved quickly to remake the company in his image, and this influential group is responsible for plotting strategic priorities, such as social networking and mobile computing.

In the revamping of the group earlier this year, Page swapped out several of the executives who previously had seats at the table and brought in managers spearheading key initiatives. Among the new members of Page's cabinet are social networking head Vic Gundotra, Android mobile chief Andy Rubin and YouTube head Salar Kamangar, according to people familiar with the matter.

Executives who have left the group include Marissa Mayer, the head of Google's local, maps and location services business; Rachel Whetstone, its London-based global communications and public affairs chief; and Shona Brown, who previously oversaw business operations and now heads the company's philanthropic arm.

What pattern do you notice? Please vote for the comments you agree with -- or add your own!

Jerome A. F: I'm sure a male chief of communications and public affairs would have been excluded as well.

Tim Carmody: I think so too. I'm not saying it's a cause, but it is an effect; different makeup (whether it's gender, age, background, areas of specialization) changes the character of the company, its public faces, its priorities, etc.

The January issue of Wired has my first article/review in the print magazine, a roundup of new e-readers. We didn't get to include the new Kindle Touch or the Kindle Fire, because they weren't released until a month ago (magazines take a long time to make!). But I was still surprised at how much I liked the Kobo Touch and how disappointed I was with the $79 entry-level E Ink Kindle.

Kobo put up scans of two pages of the review. (I don't even have my print copy yet! The world is crazy.) Still, very happy to be in my first issue of the magazine — and I'm already writing something for my next issue now.

Derek Xava: Congratulations Tim. Hopefully we'll see more of your speculative analysis in print, too. Over the past year I've noticed that you present the arguments of others particularly well within a pluralist context. Only then do you state your own favorite views--even if admittedly for the moment--before finally seeming to encourage the reader to help evolve your own thoughts. I suppose that in the end, the best congratulations are those that come with thanks for the work you've been sharing with us. Thanks, dude!